Social Systems and Constructivism - Essay Example

Theories of Organizational THEORIES OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND SOCIAL SYSTEMS THROUGH CONSTRUCTIVISM Tremendous development has taken place in the field of education. These include considerable attention on concretizing the countless idea of philosophers and educators, including theories about constructivism and how it is applied in educational policy making, curriculum preparation, educational practice, scholarship programs and many others. Although various issues and instructional framework in relation to constructivism has been tackled and proposed for the entire educational systems, challenges continue to surface as far as the implementation of constructivist approaches are concerned. This paper intends to highlight the relationship between social and cognitive constructivism, how it independently or collaboratively influence teaching as well as learning process. It also relates the constructivists’ theories and concepts in addressing learner’s needs and their academic success. Constructivism (Cannella & Reiff, 1994; Richardson, 1997) is a learning-making or meaning-making theory, which offers an explanation about the nature of knowledge as well as how human beings learn. It sustain that individuals build or construct their own new knowledge via the interaction which have been believed, known and the ideas as well as activities with which are encountered. In a constructivist setting, learning activities are characterized by lively engagement, problem solving, inquiry, and collaboration by the learners. Teachers are considered as the facilitator, guide and co-explorer who motivate learners to question, and not just dispenser of knowledge. As to Brooks and Brooks (1993: vii), constructivism is a theory about learning. The author believe that learner uses a “self-regulated mechanism” in order to resolve inner cognitive conflicts which often become obvious through concrete experience, reflection and collaborative discourse. Theoretical Foundations of Social Constructivism Integrating the idea of constructivism to education is not anymore a new phenomenon. Trace back the efforts of Jean Piaget (1973), a Swiss developmental psychologist and also Russian psychologist Lev Vigotsky (1978). The idea has further influenced by the developmental philosopher Jacques Rousseau, followed by the theories of John Dewey, Arnold Gesell and G. Stanley Hall, (Stone, 1996). Matthews Vadeboncoeur (1997) classifies three important strands in interpreting Jean Piaget’s socio-cultural, and emancipatory constructivism. The said strands vary primarily by; its subject of study, views regarding how cognitive forms build up, lastly, the releasing power of the pedagogical applications or approaches derived (p. 22). The theoretical viewpoint of Jean Piaget marked a significant influence. Though, Piagetian constructivism is a division of a larger historical challenge especially to modernist notions of objective truth in general and also with the use of scientific, validated methods of teaching (Gross & Levitt, 1994). Matthews (1998) said, Piaget’s theory on “constructivism” suggests a window as to what children is really interested in, what they able to achieve, in diverse stages of their development are. The theory depicts how children’s ways of doing as well as how their thinking evolve over time, and the extent of circumstance they more likely to set out—or hold onto. The work is focused more on investigating children’s ideas about nature and conservation, and focused on using innate learning abilities as an approach or a method for teaching. Piaget further suggests that children should not abandon their worldviews just because anyone else, even if an expert tells them they’re wrong. Another interesting point is from socio-constructivist theory by Vygotskys. This author has used up his entire life studying the task of cultural artifacts such as tools, language, materials, people as a resource, for pulling out the best in every person’s cognitive potential. So have many other researchers in the socio-constructivist tradition remain to be essentially logic-oriented and science-centered model. In many ways, developmental theories regard cognitive development as a slow but steady move away from perceptive towards rational thinking, or commencing everyday cognition in the direction of scientific reasoning. In view of that, cognitive achievements are measured in terms of three main acts of distancing: First is the individual’s ability to appear from here-and-now incidents (characteristic of practical intelligence), second is the ability to dig out knowledge from its substrate (like from contexts of utilization and personal goals); and third is the ability to work mentally on virtual worlds, moving out operations in the top instead of carrying them out externally (Ackermann, 1991). To both of these authors, higher forms of judgment are abstract and considered “in the head”. These are contrary to the ideas of Papert. Seymour Papert’s theory is also known as theory of constructionism. He has far less canonical view about the mutual roles of concrete and formal knowledge. Both concrete and formal knowledge reigns even in adults and to the scientists. Constructionism contributes to constructivist’s outlook of learning as forming or creating knowledge structure in the course of progressive internalization of actions (Papert, 1991, p.1). Papert embarks on the concept of Piagetian learning as “learning without being taught” (Papert 1980: 7) according or based on the effort of French psychologist Jean Piaget. This concept described the child as a builder who requires materials from the world to learn from and the said materials are not essentially customary textbooks, but instead the genuine world experiences the child comes across. Children inherently construct theories on their own, creating their own fundamentals for knowledge. Papert cited Piaget’s work as Piaget investigated children’s ideas about topics like nature and conservation, and puts a focus on using those innate learning abilities as a scheme for teaching. The author sets a personal example of discovering new gadgets and tools as learning materials that can later be used as a ground work for understanding algebra and mathematics. On this ground, the child is described as a designer who needs materials which are not essentially conventional textbooks, but instead the authentic world experiences the child encounters. Children innately build theories of the world on their own, constructing their own foundations for knowledge. The mutual roles of concrete and formal knowledge, to them, both reigns even in adults and to the scientists. Traditional epistemology provides a privileged position to knowledge which is considered abstract, detached and impersonal from the knower, and deal with other forms of knowledge as low-grade. These points were argued by feminist scholars, they claim that many women and scientists prefer working with added personal, less detached knowledge which, carry out their functions very successfully. In reclaiming the profoundly grounded (Papert, 1991; p.10), experience-based, and one-sided nature of individual’s cognition, Papert’s approach emphasizes that alternative epitemologies are probable, and that real, substantive thinking is no less imperative than considering out things “in the head”. Papert described, “technology and education” as the means of inventing innovative gadgets to teach the similar old stuff in a sparsely disguised version of actually the same old way” (Papert, 1971, 1-1). Papert’s approach helps us gain awareness as to how ideas get formed and transformed when expressed on the basis of media use, when worked out by individual minds. The emphasis shifts from general to individual learners’ dialogue with their own desired representations, symbolism, artifacts, and/or objects-to-think with. Papert asks “why should we not teach children to think, to learn, to play?” (Papert 1971, 2-1) instead of the usual or routine instruction given to students, he encourages the use of motivation on how children think and also acquire knowledge from practical encounters instead of feeding blindly teaching facts. Projecting out children’s inner feelings as well as ideas is a key to learning. Expressing ideas enable them to develop more and help communicate with others. The succession of self-directed learning can be considered as an iterative process that allows learners formulate for themselves out from the tools and mediations which best support the discovery about what they most care about. In general, the psychological constructivism used in various applications today, were most notably explained by Piaget, and the social constructivism can be associated with Vygotsky. Piaget and Papert however, are both constructivists in that they oversee children as the creators of their own cognitive tools, where knowledge and the world are constructed and constantly rebuilt through personal experience. Both authors are also developmentalists, since they share view of knowledge construction and further study the conditions to which learners are likely to change their theories through interacting with it in a considerable period of time. The theorists describe intelligence as ability to strike a balance between change, stability, closure and openness, at the same time, continuity and diversity. Relationship between Social and Cognitive Constructivism Vygotskian or constructivism reiterates education for social transformation in which theory of human development puts an individual within the context of socio-cultural aspect. The development of an individual can be derived from social interactions where cultural meanings are then shared by the group and later internalized by the individual (Richardson, 1997). An individual is not just a physically, but also socially and culturally implanted in the society. On the other hand, the cognitive person, despite the fact that one is associated with the outside world via systems of perception as well as of action, is more concerned with inner representations and operations. Obviously, the inherent human consist of brain/mind complex system, able to respond, receives, and transmits information (Stillings, et.al, 1995). The presence of the individual’s cognitive interpretation is naturally expressed and apparently, there is extra in the mind than solely a reaction to signals from the society. Dennett (1978) distinguishes man in a rational, functional, and physical level. Many other cognitive scientists and experts have acknowledged that human mind cannot merely be described by a physical or rational level alone. In fact, cognitive scientists are not so interested in the physical (or biological) aspect, because to them, the information of the physical level is still unclear. For that reason, cognitive scientists illustrate the physical level as a separate layer (Anderson, 2004). The cognitive architecture of an individual is based on the essential view. In the case of embodied cognition, we take up the ideas of the sub-assumption of behaviors, that these are actually important in constructing the awareness at the same time connecting it individuals’ social situations. Social constructivism as one social psychological theory aims to explain the relation between the human being as part of its society. In this line of reasoning, the theory tracks a direction, although the direction may be too abstract to change into a useful social model. Basically, humans are concerned with the mind - belief system and also the learning/cognitive system. Another level in one’s persona is the social level that is concerned with behavior among other groups - habits of action, collective action, social laws, and the overall characteristics of the group. Thus, in the context of cognitive and social constructivism, individuals can be modeled as social-cognitive persons who socially construct the world he or she live in, and may argue that an organization is present by means of a cooperative social construction. People generally construct knowledge in dealing with the environment, in the said process, people who are involved and their environment are changed. Schools are identified as the socio- cultural environment where teaching and learning are carried out and where "cultural tools," like reading, writing, certain modes of discourse and other form of abilities are utilized. This approach presupposes that theory and practice never create or develop in a vacuum but are shaped by central cultural supposition (Martin, 1994; OLoughlin, 1995). This statement strongly indicates that, the cognitive dimension of an individual is reconstructed, shaped and is affected by how social interactions at home, school and the extended community are being established. If focused in education system, Myers (1996) elaborated that, the subject of instruction, formal knowledge and the manner of subject presentation can be influenced by the historical and also by cultural environment that created them. To achieve the goals of social transformation as well as reconstruction, the context of education be required to be deconstructed, while power relationships, cultural assumptions, and historical influences which under gird it must be exposed, scrutinized and, when necessary, changed. Constructivism, social re-constructivism, socio-historical constructivism, socio-cultural constructivism, and emancipatory constructivism are variants of social constructivism. Although constructivism may enlighten and influence practice, one has to note that constructivism (Wolffe & McMullen, 1996), is a theory of learning, and is not a theory of teaching. According to MacKinnon & Scarf-Seatter (1997), translating theory into practice is difficult at the same time imprecise. Nevertheless, education literature credentials from large-and small-scale efforts may do so (DeJong & Grooms, 1996; Kaufman, 1996; Richardson, 1997). Example, as an effort of a statewide education reform program, faculty of University of Louisville supported by financially by the Kentucky Department of Education, thus, developed 11 guidelines (Fischetti, Dittmer, & Kyle, 1996) and possible indicators of a constructivist teaching. Another point is from the honored Foxfire Project which devised 11 core practices which reflect the constructivist underpinnings using Foxfire approach to teaching and also with professional development that has evolved over a 30-year period (Teets & Starnes, 1996). Constructivist teacher education by and large reflects two most important traditions (Canella & Reiff, 1994); the developmental and the social re-constructionist traditions. Most programs that are influenced by the developmental tradition make an effort to instruct students how to teach in a constructivist, normally Piagetian, manner. They are usually characterized by extensive direct instruction both in theory and practice, time and again without complementary opportunities for the purpose of inquiry, discovery, or self-examination. This method or approach can simply turn into overly prescriptive. Possibly, the teacher educator perspectives approach to teaching that is fundamentally adversative to the approach students may have it in mind to employ in their future (Oldfather, Bonds, & Bray, 1994). Moreover, Richardson (1997) identifies two factors which come into sight to affect the approach teachers as well as teacher educators take in creating constructivist settings—the level to which the social consideration is acknowledged as a vital factor in learning, individual cognitive development, and the specific subject matter, content, or discipline. The overarching test constructivism offers to teacher educators is the dreadful task of translating a learning theory keen on a theory of teaching (MacKinnon & Scarff-Seatter, 1997), that in turn raises questions regarding what teachers need to know at the same time, what they be able to do. Other tasks of teacher education involve balancing the call for acknowledgement of the different discipline-specific necessities of teaching with the must to model constructivist methods in courses and practicum. Nonetheless, programs which are influenced by social re-constructionist tradition are challenged to assist teacher education students reform their own prior knowledge, attitudes, and would comprehend how these perceptions evolved, explore the outcomes or effects they have on behavior and actions, consequently, consider alternate conceptions and assertions that may be more practical in teaching. Structured reflection and critical analysis on formal course knowledge as well as everyday practical know-how are incorporated. Numerous authors have cited the significance of teacher educators designing constructivist approaches which actively involve students in interdisciplinary investigation, collaborative activity, and also field-based opportunities intended for experiential learning, observation, reflection, and self-examination (Kaufman, 1996; Kroll & LaBosky, 1996). To obtain socially just and culturally relevant pedagogy and practice out of constructivist epistemologies, Martin (1994) and Vadeboncoeur (1997) insist on teacher educators that they have to deconstruct and inspect cultural assumptions which underlie a variety of interpretations of constructivism to depict on how social beliefs have affected or influenced the development of theory as well as of practices. Without such examination, societal inequities and historical structures of oppression may be continued in supposedly constructivist. Thus, an ultimate challenge faced by educators is probably the pitfall of concerning constructivism as the only feasible theoretical framework for teaching and learning. Indeed, it is one way of considering how knowledge and understanding are formed; however, it is not the only way. Nor are diverse interpretations of constructivism essentially incompatible with one another (MacKinnon & Scarff-Seatter, 1997; Oldfather, Bonds, & Bray, 1994). Forthcoming teachers ought to be exposed to varying point of views and be given opportunities to build up the discretion needed to select the most fittingly and the skills to put into practice their choices. Impacts of Cognitive and Social Constructivism in the Enhancement of Instruction This section considers pertinent key research findings which uncovers strategies and approaches for enhancement of instruction, within the context of cognitive and social constructivism. Primarily, the developmental researches conducted by Erikson (1963), Piaget (1973) and, Vigotsky (1978), one classically seeks a stage-based theory that suggests, children demonstrate different interests, at different stages of their lives. Therefore, during infancy the prime activity involves emotional interactions. Later, the child is involved in object manipulation. When they reach ages three to seven years, they engage in role playing, and about age seven to eleven years official study in school occurs. Development continues until later maturity. These research findings have been directly converted into educational or instructional practice. To concretize the theories, various schools promote child-center, “progressive” teaching practices. For example, in Canadian schools, in the British schools (Stone, 1996) and those which are developmentally suitable practices supported by early childhood educators (e.g., Carta, Schwartz, Atwater, & McConnell, 1991, cited in Stone, 1996). Learner-centered teacher education and colleges of education promoting the concept of discovery learning are examples of developmentalist practice and are basically application of the principles universal to constructivist teacher education. Underscoring the concept of educationally suitable practice is the standpoint that going to school is considered an intervention, intended to create some observable, distinctive change on a range of unusual socially valued proportions in the child’s development (Deno, 1995). Consequently, as an experimental intervention, child’s schooling is expected to generate a significant effect in relation to a no treatment control set up (e.g., children who refuse to attend school). Teacher trainees are then given the detailed responsibility to improve the expected effect of school attendance. A design called, Constructivist Learning Design involves Conventional lesson planning, writes Gagnon and Collay (n.d.) and is about planning exactly what the teacher will do. These models of traditional planning are supported on verbal explanations or visual expressions by the instructor who then combines it along with practice of the said method or student’s skill. Another alternative, called Constructivist Learning Design is to settle on what the students will do as a substitute. There are six element approaches identified to design constructivist learning activities: Situation, Grouping, Questions, Bridge, Exhibit and Reflections (Harel & Papert, 1991). First is the Situation. In this element, teachers are asked to suggest a situation for students to explore or investigate, then, the leader must propose the students a process of exploring and discovering the problem space all the way through posing questions, making decisions as well as formulating conclusions. The focus then turns to arrangement of Groupings, in cooperation of students (social aspect) and resources (micro world orientation). It would appear that authors are recommending that a classroom micro world could fabulously include traditional paper materials. Once the stage is lay down, Gagnon and Collay twist to Bridging, a figure of determining the extent of and structuring upon situated knowledge based or aligning on the prior experiences of the students. Like student development programs, the authors advise practice documentation for each student. Termed an Exhibit, this take accounts the presentation of ideas and the tracking or recording of the thought process which led them there. This mechanism is confirmed in the final Reflection of the entire process, where learners are asked to think on the subject of how they learned and what they will obtain with them from the process. Questions are asked all the way through the process to help frame the exploration. These are used to persuade the process, from Situation creation to eventual Reflection. Constructivist Learning Design diverges in that it encourages teachers to execute assessment in this process, together initially at some point in the stage of Bridging and afterwards, generating questions to evaluate what the learners have learned, and for self-evaluation through the Exhibit phase. It also unswervingly asserts that such a method or approach can be used in present frameworks for classes. Unluckily, it does not present example case studies where such a technique has been applied. Interactive multimedia portfolio, knowledge clustering, interactive discussions, hyperlinked video scenarios with multiple perspectives, multimedia case studies, web cast demonstration of skill by the student, computer based simulation, web and pod casting skills demonstration by the student are some activities of constructivism learning (Wilson, 2002). The Role of Technology Rich Environment towards Learners’ Needs The advent of technology use in the classroom and varied educational settings has impacted the life and works of people in the academe. In United States, the accessibility of students to computer technology is increasing. From one computer for each 125 students in 1983 (Glennan & Melmed, 1996), it changed to 5.7 students in one computer in 1999 (Education Week, 1999). As of 1998, 93 percent of faculty members in Grades 4-12 were already using computers for instructional purposes. Further, there is accumulating proof that computers and related technologies are considered effective tools for enhancing student learning and achievement when it is used (Schacter, 1999; Wenglinsky, 1998). Uses include support for individual and group learning and for instructional management (Becker, Ravitz, & Wong, 1999; Wenglinsky, 1998). Conversely, it has been known that the allocation of computing and technological materials or resources does not equate to flourishing utilization and learning profit for students. Undeniably, it is only as soon as programs are well implemented so as to positive effects on learning as well as achievement can be expected (Collis, et. al., 1996; Knapp & Glenn, 1996). Quality of implementation depends on a blend of adequate technical resources, faculty trainings in terms of application strategies and techniques (Anderson & Ronnkvist, 1999; Becker, 1998), and learner’s engagement in the use of the technology (Hickey, 1997). To sum up, technology in the classroom setting is only transformed into learning and achievement expansion when the hardware and software are accurate to program objectives, trained teachers and are followed through by applying the said technology to the curricular as well as learning goals, and students engage well to use it as learning devices. If one looks into the confluence of more than a few conditions reasonable amount of technical expertise in the use of computer technology, convenient (classroom) access to adequate computers to incorporate one’s work to everyday use by students or individuals who are taking turns, perhaps we can see whether nearly every teachers use computers in a substantial and intellectually fruitful way. This is one of the substantive principle or teaching philosophy that favors a constructivist-oriented (e.g., project-based, inquiry-based) teaching practice (Becker, 2001). Constructivist educational principles with the evidenced based assumptions and practices are very important in managing learning process. Since the learner play an active role in the conduct of learning activities, educators must see to it that learning process is child directed and not teacher directed. As what Piaget (1973) commented that, children, as operational thinkers, evolve through three stages of thinking. These are: preoperational, concrete, and finally, formal operational. According to the assumed reality of the aforementioned stages, constructivist teachers find it helpful to adapt their teaching technique, approach, and substance to the specific developmental phase of the child. In the same way Waite-Stupiansky (1997) states: Children have to progress according to the levels of representation at a rate which fit their levels of understanding. However, in the case where highly abstract symbols are taught too quickly, such as flash cards together with words printed on it children may attain only a surface-level of memorization and without deeper understanding (p.9). All the more, the above notion of the significance of thinking deeper as one process in learning is the postulation that social interactions and circumstance is necessary for learning to happen. Similarly, Waite-Stupiansky (1997) said that, the context offered by social interactions among friends or peers is an ordinary learning environment in which balanced reasoning can build up. The feedback is usually immediate and the motivation to succeed is high” (p. 22). Note that constructivist teaching practice assumes the drive to learn is internally initiated by the child. Extrinsic rewards, encouragement, fear of punishment, as well as traditional grading systems struggle against the child’s intrinsic motivation in order to make sense out of the world. If children will only work for the purpose of pleasing the professor, instead of satisfying one’s natural hunt for understanding, they will not grow toward intellectual self-sufficiency or autonomy (p.23). In a research conducted by Becker (2001) to more than 4,100 educators in over 1,100 schools across United States, who described their own educational philosophies as well as characteristics of teaching practices, the uses of computers in teaching, and different aspects of their teaching environment and involvement in schools in one of more than fifty (50) identified national/regional reform programs in educational setting. Fairly, it was found out from the study that the relatively a small amount of academic teachers whose pedagogy included a low number of topics covered in large depth were found twice as likely as those compared to who informed covering a large number of subjects to assign computer activities to their corresponding students on a frequent basis (29% vs. 14%). Teachers with five (5) to eight (8) computers in their classroom were double as likely to give students frequent technological experience during class as compared to teachers of the same subjects, whose classes use computers inside a lab together with 15+ computers. This may seem counter-intuitive while being in a lab with three times as many computers as these classrooms have would seem to be preferable. Becker also found out those teachers with greater technical knowledge use computers more. The teachers who belong in the top 25% of the said Computer Knowledge index, averagely had students who operate three times the quantity of types of software as those teachers in the bottom of 25%. Data shows that the pattern is stronger to those teachers with secondary academic subjects. The largest difference is between teachers who belong in the upper 25%; that is, the English, math, science, and social studies that are most skilled and active in using computers particularly in most of the situations. Teachers who have satisfactory technical expertise, sufficient classroom access to computers, and values that supports momentous learning around group projects, they are mainly faculty who have students who use computers regularly during class. Moreover, for the most professionally active teachers, in a situation to provide leadership with their peers, are the most dynamic computer users of all. The developmental or constructivist belief states that learning is the outcome of an emergent progression. Any process that is opposing to the belief in evolving learning is met with (non-empirical) skepticism. While beliefs are not testable scheme, scientific methodology and its data naturally have little meaning in the part of developmental/constructivist educator. Harel and Papert (1991) mentioned that, Idit Harel launch a classroom experiment called a design, the Instructional Software Design Project (IDSP). A class of fourth grade students allotted fifteen weeks designing software to instruct other children fractions. Even if they would gain knowledge about programming as a result, this was considered a means to an end. Applying the constructivist proverb, “you learn better by doing”, (Harel and Papert, 1991: 42). According to Harel, the concrete teaching was not as significant as the fourth graders’ feeling which they were working on authentic product which could be used as well as enjoyed by real people (Harel and Papert 1991: 46). Even though the topic may be quite boring, the design project itself assembled creativity, personal knowledge, some sense of doing more essential than just acquiring a correct answer (Harel and Papert 1991: 46). Many of the students develop in their understanding by relating the topic with the rest of their lives since their exposure to the subject. Perkins philosophy of a blueprint environment for learning is unique since it allows children to come to a decision and revise their objectives. The designing student (Harel and Papert 1991: 77) can impose his own meanings and aims throughout the project To wrap up, we have reached certain level of awareness as to how constructivism theories focus on knowledge formed and transformed into a more efficient learning outcome. While experts like Piaget, who describe the beginning of internal mental stability in the course of consecutive plateaus of balance, Papert in the same way is more interested in dynamic of change. He stresses the feebleness of idea during transitional periods and showed concerned with how diverse people think on one occasion, that their convictions break down, once option views sink in, and expanding their existing view of the world grows necessarily. The bottom line of arguments of expert theorists always points toward conceptuality, and suppleness of knowledge under structure. Piaget, Vigotsky and Papert stressed that, “children” depict in their theories are unlike and much accustomed with the researchers personal styles as well as scientific interests. Understandably, they construct their own concept of idealized child. Perhaps the important lesson here is that, both the “dwelling in” as well as the “stepping back” courses of actions are equally significant in getting such a cognitive measurement. New framework of knowledge is formed as soon as the learner fits their existing representation to accommodate the new information (Brooks and Brooks 1993: 26). Developers who design-oriented learning environments must adopt an approach friendly and comfortable in the part of the learners. Regrettably, that poses a predicament for those educators working in limited timeframes. Short of impractical wholesale educational reform, new incremental approach is almost certainly required. With that apprehension stated, some recommended practices and approaches become visible evident for the development of the effective interventions. Allow each student to select and discover a task to work on that is meaningful for them to achieve the emotional synchronicity. A multitude of resources must be offered for solving problems, although minimize the learning switching linking them for practical reasons. Acknowledge that special styles and levels of perceptions subsist for each of the facilities used. Sharing of techniques must be encourage and help of students collectively. Development of social atmosphere that encourages collaboration and cooperation is highly recommended in a learning group. As lesson go along, present the actual world problems and available resolution, but not to take their problems as ones to solve by them. On top of everything defining the purpose/s for an activity and its usefulness must always be presented. Teachers must remember that they need to increase, formulate different opportunities for dialogue on students’ experiences, and design program for uninterrupted development of students’ abilities. These will envisage and discern more powerful learning experiences for young people. Regardless of the sensible fear, there must be reassurance that technologies are used to make positive difference in education of young people. Their exemplar can only be some sort of stimulation for the perpetuation of research in education. In addition, teachers’ views of learning guide them as they make decisions about desirable means of implementing and assessing instruction. It is popular today to speak of paradigm shifts, and certainly major conceptual changes do occur in virtually all fields of study. Paradigm shifts bring new perspectives, new conceptualizations and new ways of thinking about a topic, large or small. An important area of study in the philosophy of science is what is referred to as scientific revolutions. REFERENCES Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An Integrated Theory of Mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036. 1060. Brooks, J. and Brooks M. 1993. The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Fosnot, C. 1997. Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice. New York, New York: Teachers College Press. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated knowledge and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher. Vol. 18 (1). pp. 32-42. Cannella, G. S., & Reiff, J. C. (1994). Individual constructivist teacher education: Teachers as empowered learners. Teacher Education Quarterly 21(3), 27-38. EJ 498 429 Carey, S. (1983) Cognitive development: The descriptive problem. In Gazzaniga (Ed.). Handbook for Cognitive Neurology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence & Erlbaum. Carey, S. (1987). Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chall, J, S. (2000). The academic achievement challenge: What really works in the classroom? New York: Guilford Press. DeJong, L., & Groomes, F. (1996). A constructivist teacher education program that incorporates community service to prepare students to work with children living in poverty. Action In Teacher Education, 18(2), 86-95. EJ 536 849 Dennett, D. C. (1991). Real patterns. Journal of Philosophy, 87, 27.51. Deno, S. (1995) The school psychologist as problem solver. In J. Grimes, and A. Thomas (Eds.) Best practices in school psychology, 471-484. Silver Spring, MD.: National Association of School Psychologists. Eisner, E.W., (1997) The promise and perils of alternative forms of data representation. Educational Researcher, 26(6),4-10. Fischetti, J., Dittmer, A., & Kyle, D. W. (1996). Shifting paradigms: Emerging issues for educational policy and practice. Teacher Educator, 31(3), 189-201. EJ 525 345. Fox-Keller, E. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven. Yale University Press. Gagnon, G. and Collay, M. (n.d.) Constructivist learning design. Retrieved January 25, 2009 From http://www.prainbow.com/cld/cldp.html Goldstein, R., Kalas, I., Noss, R., and Pratt, D. (2001) Building rules. Cognitive Technology 2001 Proceedings. 267-281. Harel, I. and Papert S. 1991. Constructionism. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Ismat, A. (1998). Constructivism in teacher education: Considerations for those who would link practice to theory. ERIC Digest; ED426986. Kegan, R. (1982). The Evolving Self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kaufman, D. (1996). Constructivist-based experiential learning in teacher education. Action In Teacher Education, 18(2), 40-49. EJ 536 845. Kroll, L. R., & LaBosky, V. K. (1996). Practicing what we preach: Constructivism in a teacher education program. Action In Teacher Education, 18(2), 63-72. EJ 536 947 Martin, F., Mikhak, B., Resnick, M., Silverman, B., and Berg, R. 2000. To Mindstorms and beyond: Evolution of a construction kit for magical machines. Robots for kids: Exploring new technologies for learning. Morgan Kaufmann. Papert, S. 1971. Teaching children thinking. MIT AI Lab Memos. #247. Papert, S. 1980. Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York, New York: Basic Books. Matthews William J. Constructivism in the Classroom: Epistemology, History, and Empirical. Matthews, W.J. (1998). Let’s get real: The fallacy of post modernism. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 18, 16-33. Matthews, W.J. (in press). Reality exists: A Critique of antirealism in brief therapy. In J. Zeig, S. Tucker (Eds.) Handbook of Ericksonian Therapy. Redding, CT: Zeig/Tucker. Oldfather, P., Bonds, S., & Bray, T. (1994). Drawing the circle: Collaborative mind mapping as a process for developing a constructivistteacher education program. Teacher Education Quarterly 21(3), 5-13. EJ 492 137 OLoughlin, M. (1995). Daring the imagination: Unlocking voices of dissent and possibility in teaching. Theory Into Practice, 24(2), 107-116. EJ 512 860 Perkins, D. (1986) Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pratt, D. and Ainley, J. (1997) The construction of meanings for geometric construction: Two contrasting cases. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning. 1.3, 293-322. Resnick, M. (1993) Behaviour construction kits. Communications of the ACM. Volume 36, No. 7. Resnick, M. 1995. New paradigms for computing, new paradigms for thinking. Computers and Exploratory Learning. New York, New York: Springer-Verlag. Resnick, M., Martin, F., Sargent, R., and Silverman, B. (1996) Programmable bricks: Toys to think with. IBM Systems Journal. Volume 35, No. 3&4. Resnick, M., Bruckman, A., and Martin, F. (1996) Pianos not stereos: Creating computational construction kits. ACM Interactions. September/October 1996 Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teaching and teacher education: Theory and practice. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Constructivist teacher Education: Building New Understandings, pp.3-14 Washington, DC: Falmer Press. Teets, S. T., & Starnes, B. A. (1996). Foxfire: Constructivism for teachers and learners. Action In Teacher Education, 18(2), 31-39. EJ 536 844 Vadeboncoeur, J. (1997). Child development and the purpose of education: A historical context for constructivism in teacher education. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Constructivist Teacher Education: Building New Understandings, Washington, DC: pp. 15-37. Falmer Press. Wilson, M. (2002) Constructivist learning activities: Imagine the possibilities. BCIT Learning and Teaching Centre, British Columbia Institute of Technology. Wolffe, R. J., & McMullen, D. W. (1996). The constructivist connection: Linking theory, best practice, and technology. Journal of Computing In Teacher Education, 12(2), 25-28. EJ 526 775. Read More